Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 266 posts

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#61

Post by mtberatwork »

pingyong wrote: post #30

Hmm. A lot of businesses will get into big trouble over the coming weeks and potentially months. Bars, event organizers, even shopping malls. They're all going to go down to almost zero profit for a while. The problem is if you just give people money right now, they literally can't spend it on those things because they are or will be closed during that time. Money isn't the reason they're not going, Corona is. The mo…

The workers at these establishments, especially those whose income is tied to tips, will certainly need this extra money for rent, food, etc.

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#62

Post by SilasX »

stagger87 wrote: post #36
SilasX wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only the problem weren't self-reinforcing where existing homeowners have the majority of their net worth tied to their home and thus double down on fighting any policy that would reduce home values.

Is this actually a problem? Why would people want more of their net worth tied up in their home? Wouldn't cheaper homes make the properly ladder game more accessible? Are people leveraging their current home value enough to need it to be higher?

It's not that they want it to be such a fraction of their NW, it's that it already is, because they were doing that which is popular and makes them higher-status. Given that it already is, I can see how they might be fine with some kind of grand compromise whereby they lose the potential NW gain from the home, and get something in return without the malicious incentives, but that would probably be too expensive to get majority support.

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#63

Post by whatshisface »

nathancahill wrote: post #50
pingyong wrote: post #30

Hmm. A lot of businesses will get into big trouble over the coming weeks and potentially months. Bars, event organizers, even shopping malls. They're all going to go down to almost zero profit for a while. The problem is if you just give people money right now, they literally can't spend it on those things because they are or will be closed during that time. Money isn't the reason they're not going, Corona is. The mo…

> almost zero profit Almost zero revenue. Negative profit.

There are going to be a lot of interesting conversations with landlords in the coming months. "If you make me pay rent, I won't be around when the crisis is over. If you let me off paying rent, I will get back in business and start paying rent again faster than any other way you could fill my space."

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#64

Post by optymizer »

abfan1127 wrote: post #29
duxup wrote: post #19

Economics is an interesting field of study with what seems like endless amount of differing views and such. However, it seems that if you're looking for economic stimulus one of the most sure fire ways / proven ways / agreed upon ways to get bang for the buck is to give poor people money. Poor people will spend it, and you can be pretty dang sure they'll put that money into the economy and quickly. I'm all for it.

The most important aspect of the claim about spending money is the broken window fallacy. Henry Hazlitt wrote a great book on the subject called Economics in One lesson. The simple example is that we can't go around breaking windows to stimulate the economy. Sure, the window manufacturer and the window replacement companies might benefit, however that money which went towards the window could have gone elsewhere. Eng…

"money has to come from somewhere" is not a bad thing. Not all the money is reasonably allocated with equivalent side-effects.

For example, it could come from the $748 billion dollars that are allocated for the military budget, which would take away $327 billion and still leave the US as the country spending the most money on the military.

Maybe that means we stop wars that break windows in other countries for a year to focus on healthcare issues, and maybe even, down the line, we find money to improve education for the future generations.

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#66

Post by chewz »

shartshooter wrote: post #26

As long as the money is given to folks who need and/or will spend it, it feels like this is the exact situation where the federal government steps in for stimulus. There’s no pull yourself up by your bootstraps talk right now and there shouldn’t be. I know the single parent working a couple of jobs will spend every dime they’re given in a time like this, just to survive. A yuppie like me would just park it in my savi…

Giving to everyone is the simplest and cheapest and quickest approach. If you do not need the money just pass it to someone who needs it more.

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#67

Post by vel0city »

seneca wrote: post #21
samsquire wrote: post #12

The case for unconditional basic income has never been stronger. Especially with disease precluding work.

I'm curious, in current proposals, would a UBI be limited to citizens only? I'm guessing not, given the "universal" nature of it. If that's the case, I can't say I see support for a UBI gaining wide-spread support, or economic viability, in the US without first securing our boarders. It seems mutually exclusive, given that it would result in an unprecedented flood of economic migrants. I may be misunderstanding the s…

If you're worried about people coming to funnel this money overseas, UBI could be excluded from expatriation of money with deportation/blacklisting from UBI being consequences for sending the money abroad. Otherwise I don't see why a migrant being an "economic" migrant would make much of a difference. The basic premise of UBI is that ultimately that money is going to flow through the economy (it is going to be spent), why does it matter if it is a citizen spending it on a Big Mac or rent versus an H1B migrant versus a lottery visa holder versus an "economic" migrant?

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#68

Post by nimbius »

hey i remember when we did this in 2008. There was a huge economic meltdown, I just lost my job and was living out of my truck, and the Republican party wasnt looking like a real winner in the upcoming election. So it was decided that everyone gets a "stimulus check."

I got $700 from the Republican party...and it basically felt like $700 to keep my mouth shut about how Bush didnt care to find Osama Bin Laden. it was a few hundred and in return i was expected to stop complaining about how TARP bailed out big banks but left me living in a stale coffee scented Dodge Ram. I am a little bitter about the whole gesture but let me tell you what I spent that money on: credit card debt.

Now here we are in 2020 and the Republican party is looking at cutting checks for everyone again and I gotta wonder why. What is this really hoping to achieve? Write me a check and in return I stop complaining about how my health insurance doesnt cover a flu shot? or how the country has more prison beds than hospital beds? That basically everything the president promised he'd do he either ignored or buck-passed to Obama?

I dont want corona cash. I want an economy that doesnt shit the bed like clockwork every ten years and send me out looking for handyman jobs. Id like a healthcare system that doesnt include ambulance rides that are as expensive as a used car.

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#69

Post by chisleu »

duxup wrote: post #19

Economics is an interesting field of study with what seems like endless amount of differing views and such. However, it seems that if you're looking for economic stimulus one of the most sure fire ways / proven ways / agreed upon ways to get bang for the buck is to give poor people money. Poor people will spend it, and you can be pretty dang sure they'll put that money into the economy and quickly. I'm all for it.

I'm not poor and I'll totally spend it.

I think it's important to realize that this tiny stimulus, whatever it ends up being, $1k, $3k, whatever, is just the sugar to help the massive bailouts go down.

All the companies that took extra profits from the last round of stimulus saved cash and bought back stocks to inflate the stock prices.

The virus was only the needle that popped the good times bubble. Now the market is in free fall, stopping only to bounce off of the branches (circuit breakers) on the way down the cliffside.

How about we accept the individual stimulus and fight against the bailouts this time? These companies aren't too big to fail. They are just too big to be run by profiteering gluttons who fall back on the taxpayer when their business plan is shown to be a failure.

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#70

Post by mtberatwork »

ed312 wrote: post #39
shartshooter wrote: post #26

As long as the money is given to folks who need and/or will spend it, it feels like this is the exact situation where the federal government steps in for stimulus. There’s no pull yourself up by your bootstraps talk right now and there shouldn’t be. I know the single parent working a couple of jobs will spend every dime they’re given in a time like this, just to survive. A yuppie like me would just park it in my savi…

It is impossible to know from demographic information alone exactly how people will spend a windfall. If we're doing helicopter money, we should do it for everyone equally. Maybe instead of food I buy a bunch of video games or beer or some other good. Still keeping the economic engine running.

Why not do a progressive amount based on income (available from the IRS)? Those in higher income brackets would receive less, while those in lower income brackets would receive more.
Post reply on HN